MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180597578 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1009459

NuA4 and SAGA acetyltransferase complexes cooperate for repair of DNA breaks by homologous recombination

2021· article· en· W3180597578 on OpenAlexafffund
Xue Cheng, Valérie Côté, Jacques Côté

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Genetics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanada Research ChairsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation CHU de QuébecUniversité Laval
KeywordsBiologyRAD51Homologous recombinationChromatinDNA repairHistoneCell biologyGeneticsAcetyltransferaseDNAAcetylationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chromatin modifying complexes play important yet not fully defined roles in DNA repair processes. The essential NuA4 histone acetyltransferase (HAT) complex is recruited to double-strand break (DSB) sites and spreads along with DNA end resection. As predicted, NuA4 acetylates surrounding nucleosomes upon DSB induction and defects in its activity correlate with altered DNA end resection and Rad51 recombinase recruitment. Importantly, we show that NuA4 is also recruited to the donor sequence during recombination along with increased H4 acetylation, indicating a direct role during strand invasion/D-loop formation after resection. We found that NuA4 cooperates locally with another HAT, the SAGA complex, during DSB repair as their combined action is essential for DNA end resection to occur. This cooperation of NuA4 and SAGA is required for recruitment of ATP-dependent chromatin remodelers, targeted acetylation of repair factors and homologous recombination. Our work reveals a multifaceted and conserved cooperation mechanism between acetyltransferase complexes to allow repair of DNA breaks by homologous recombination.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS GeneticsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207